Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds non-obvious context: an authentication precondition, a pointed warning that start_login does NOT enable this tool, and the shape of the returned data. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the core purpose first and the return behavior second, followed by a compact auth note. Every sentence carries information; slight redundancy in the auth sentence keeps it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description helpfully states what is returned, and it flags the auth precondition an agent must satisfy before calling. For a single-ID read tool this is nearly complete; only sibling differentiation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter, and the schema fully documents it ('Verification request ID') at 100% coverage. The description restates the ID-based lookup but adds no format, sourcing, or identifier guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get a verification request by ID') and adds what it returns ('the request with all its asset verification statuses'). It does not differentiate from near-siblings like list_verification_requests or get_verification, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Useful prerequisite guidance is given: a Proof account is required and the client must be authenticated before retrying. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over list_verification_requests or get_verification, so routing is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.